ShareThis Page
Business

FBI arrests two from investment firm sued by Pitt, CMU

| Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009

A pair of investment managers who allegedly bilked the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University out of $114 million were arrested in New York, the FBI said today.

Paul Greenwood and Stephen Walsh, principals of WG Trading Co., were to appear in federal court in Manhattan. They are the fund managers and principals of affiliate Westridge Capital Management, based in Santa Barbara, Calif.

Pitt has invested more than $65 million with Westridge since 2002, and Carnegie Mellon has invested more than $49 million since April, 2008, according to a lawsuit filed Friday.

The two schools' lawsuit asked the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania to order Westridge Capital Management Inc. to open its records and repay the money. They became concerned about their investments after the National Futures Association, a regulator based in Chicago, began auditing Walsh and Greenwood in early February.

The lawsuit said Greenwood and Walsh had "converted investor funds for their own use," loaning money from Westridge to other entities they controlled or owned. The universities seek the immediate return of the $114 million they had entrusted with the money managers.

U.S. District Court Judge Terrence McVerry issued a restraining order freezing Westridge's accounts; prohibiting its managers from collecting any pay or destroying any records; and ordering them to provide copies of their business records to the schools by March 2. A hearing on the order was scheduled for March 5.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me